Wednesday started out as a routine day in the U.S. Congress, with
Representatives attending congressional hearings, meeting with
constituents, perhaps devising clever new ways to pick our pockets.

At 8:30 in the morning an email went out to House Republicans
indicating that a gun control bill, recently introduced by Rep.
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), was on the Suspension Calendar (normally
reserved for "non-controversial" bills).

Many Representatives didn't see that email until it was too late.
Less than three hours later, the bill passed by a voice vote. The
bill in question, H.R. 2640, is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun
Control law, the subject of many previous alerts by Gun Owners of
America.

Its passage in the House is a case study in backroom deal making,
unholy alliances and deceit. A sausage factory in a third world
country with no running water has nothing on today's U.S. Congress.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that a deal had been
struck between the NRA leadership and Democrat leaders in the House.
The headline read: "Democrats, NRA Reach Deal on Background-Check
Bill."

Red flags went up throughout the pro-gun community. Who was party to
this "deal," and how many of our rights were being used as
bargaining
chips?

The McCarthy bill, at the time, looked to be going nowhere. The
general consensus among pro-gun Congressmen was that any gun bill
offered by McCarthy was simply DOA.

After all, if there were such a thing as a single issue Member of
Congress, it would have to be McCarthy. Rep. McCarthy ran for office
to ban guns; Hollywood made a movie about her efforts to ban guns;
and she is currently the lead sponsor of a bill that makes the old
Clinton gun ban pale by comparison.

Even many Democrats wouldn't go near a McCarthy gun bill. They have
learned that supporting gun control is a losing issue. Enter Rep.
John Dingell (D-MI), the so-called Dean of the House, having served
since the Eisenhower administration. Dingell is also a former NRA
Board member, and was in that capacity tapped to bring the NRA
leadership to the table.

The end result of the negotiations was that this small clique among
the NRA leadership gave this bill the support it needed to pass.

But why was it necessary to pass the bill in such an underhanded
fashion? If this is such a victory for the Second Amendment, why all
the secrecy? Why was a deal forged with the anti-gun Democrat House
leadership, keeping most pro-gun representatives in the dark? Why
was the bill rammed through on the Suspension Calendar with no
recorded vote with which to identify those who are against us?

For starters, it would be a hard sell indeed for the NRA leadership
to explain to its members what they would gain by working with
McCarthy. If this legislation had gone before the NRA membership for
a vote, it would have been rejected. For that matter, if it went
through the House in the regular fashion, with committee hearings and
recorded votes, it would have been defeated.

Consider also what the bill is: GUN CONTROL! The lead sentence in an
Associated Press article accurately stated that, "The House Wednesday
passed what could become the first major federal gun control law in
over a decade."

The bill's supporters can talk all they want to the contrary, but
forcing the states to hand over to the federal government millions of
records of Americans for the purpose of conducting a background check
is certainly an expansion of gun control.

This is a bill designed to make the gun control trains run on time.
Problem is, the train's on the wrong track. We don't need greater
efficiency enforcing laws that for years we have fought as being
unconstitutional.

Sure, there are provisions in the bill by which a person who is on
the prohibited persons list can get his name removed, but not before
proving one's innocence before a court, or convincing a psychiatrist
that he should be able to own a gun (though most psychiatrists would
be more likely to deem a person mentally defective for even wanting
to own guns).

Sad thing is, this bill, which spends hundreds of millions of your
dollars, will do nothing to make us safer. More gun control laws
will not stop the next deranged madman. What will stop a killer is
an armed law-abiding citizen. In the wake of the Virginia Tech
tragedy, we should be considering removing barriers that prevent
honest, decent people from carrying their lawfully possessed
firearms.

We don't know where the next shooting will occur; that's something
the killer decides. So whether it is in a school, a church, a
shopping mall or a government building, we should urge our elected
officials to repeal so-called gun free zones and oppose more gun
control.

Instead, we end up with a bill supported by Handgun Control and Sarah
Brady, Chuck Schumer, Teddy Kennedy, Carolyn McCarthy, and the rest
of the Who's Who of the anti-gun movement, and all the while the NRA
leadership maintains that this is a win for gun owners.

This is a Faustian bargain, which will repeatedly haunt gun owners in
the years to come.

But you should realize why they had to do it this way. Your activism
has resulted in an avalanche of grassroots opposition against this
bill. Gun owners have raised their voices of opposition
loud-and-clear, and many congressmen have been feeling the heat.

The fight is not over. They still have to run this through the
Senate. Already, there is a small cadre of pro-gun senators who are
ready to slow this bill down and do everything they can to kill it.
To be frank, a bill that has the support of all the anti-gun groups
and the NRA will be tough to beat, but we will continue to fight
every step of the way.

Although we've suffered a setback, we want to thank all of you for
the hard work you've done. Your efforts derailed the McCarthy bill
for the past five years and we would have prevailed again were it not
for the developments described above.

Be looking for an upcoming alert to the U.S. Senate. GOA will give
you the particulars of the bill that passed the House, and we will
provide you suggested language for a pre-written letter to your two
senators.

Stay tuned. There is more to come.

Poster's note:

The House has done it's dastardly deed, it's members hiding behind the skirts of an unrecorded voice vote, combined with a "suspension of the rules", mentioned in above. Next comes The Senate, members of which need to hear from their constituents. The rest lies in the hands of readers, and their friends. The rights timely action could possibly save/protect are yours.

If you enjoyed reading about "more from GOA on passage of H.R. 2640" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

eric_t12

June 15, 2007, 02:19 AM

While i wish more of our pro-rights organizations worked together, i'm glad to see i'm not the only one disillusioned by this bill... i dont want crazy people to have guns, but until they use them for evil they have a choice just like all of us do... i'd rather have the choice to be armed in defense of them, and i'm glad i haven't mentioned anything that might end up seeming 'post traumatic' from this deployment or my last...

ETA: I just emailed both senators and my Rep. (SD). I do this so often its insane... I'm glad i do, however, i'd rather be active in government than not need to be active, and fall into complacency.

gunsmith

June 15, 2007, 03:21 AM

I would like to see a compromise that would allow me national reciprocity for my carry permit

Brett Bellmore

June 15, 2007, 06:22 AM

Even if I thought this bill was a decent compromise, (It isn't a "compromise" when you only give, and don't get anything in return.) passing it by a voice vote, so that we voters can't hold the guilty members responsible, and so that they didn't actually need a quorum as the Constitutiton demands, was an outrage.

Seems that even with the NRA telling them it was ok, they knew this bill was poison, and they needed extra protection. Tells me we might still have a chance of stopping it. Also makes me suspect that the NRA knew they didn't have the membership on board for this.

JohnBT

June 15, 2007, 10:05 AM

"If this legislation had gone before the NRA membership for
a vote, it would have been rejected."

Ooooh, a fortune teller.

"For that matter, if it went through the House in the regular fashion, with committee hearings and recorded votes, it would have been defeated."

More opinionated spin.

John

jselvy

June 15, 2007, 10:15 AM

Y'all do realize that while innocuous on the surface, this law opens a second front in the war to retain our cherished rights.
Now we not only have to watch for gun specific legislation but also for any and all mental health legislation.
It would be real easy for a new "health bill" to include new categories for adjudication. More importantly none of the pro RKBA lobbying groups currently watch those bills as they generally fell outside their purview before.

Jefferson

MikeHaas

June 15, 2007, 12:45 PM

"...This is a bill designed to make the gun control trains run on time. Problem is, the train's on the wrong track..." - This is supposed to be an argument?

Translation of GOA's release: PLEASE BELIEVE WE ARE RELEVANT. And don't forget to hate NRA, send us money instead. When you compare the antics of GOA with REAL pro-gun outfits like the Fifty-Caliber Institute, GOA is revealed for the do-nothing group it is. Big deal -they send out email alerts but DO NOTHING ELSE.

What has happened here is that the Democrats have COMPLETELY AVOIDED NEW GUN CONTROL and joined on a long-time NRA policy of tightening up NICS. When the government is checking mentally healthy individuals but not those who ARE ALREADY BARRED BY FEDERAL LAW FROM BUYING GUNS - those adjusdicated by a court to be a danger to themselves or others - that is a travesty that simply permits more VT shootings, more grief for you and I and all other legal gun-owners.

And WHY did the Democratsjoin with NRA in this way? SImple. They like winning. They had to do SOMETHING in response to VT, and after NRA (not GOA) defeated Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 (both of which are virulently anti-gun), the Democrats decided they like the results of the 2006 election better. ofcourse, GOA won't tell you that, because it shows NRA is powerful, effective and focused. And ALL GOA <is> harmful to the unity gun-owners need to have to win. NRA, at least 30 times larger than GOA, is that unity.

Remember what it was like after Columbine? The anti's "Plug the gun-show loophole" BS that was REALLY a nationwide attack on purchasing guns. Extremely, virulently anti-gun. And because of NRA's masterful handling at the Congress (not GOA) - NOTHING WAS PASSED.

Compare that with today, post-VT, when some of the most anti-gunners in DC have JOINED WITH NRA to actually make NICS work better. [B]NRA hasn't budged an inch here, the anti's have been forced to capitulate into doing something useful. And of course, GOA has nothing to do with anything that actually moves thwe ball forward, being a self-neutered group that creates and courts divisiveness. Thank God so many gun-owners simply ignore them.

Mike Haas

ArmedBear

June 15, 2007, 01:04 PM

It would be real easy for a new "health bill" to include new categories for adjudication.

...in which case we have more to worry about than NICS...

Do you understand the implications of being adjudicated as mentally defective? Much of the Bill of Rights and many other rights we take for granted, are taken from you.

More importantly none of the pro RKBA lobbying groups currently watch those bills as they generally fell outside their purview before.

If they didn't pay attention, then they're remiss. They should have been watching, since anyone so adjudicated already cannot legally buy a gun.

According to this New York Slimes article, dated two months ago, "Federal law prohibits anyone who has been 'adjudicated as a mental defective,' as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from purchasing a gun."

I think the NRA saw this as "much ado about nothing," and worked primarily to make sure nobody snuck in some new gun control when they wrote the bill.

JohnBT

June 15, 2007, 04:22 PM

"I think the NRA saw this as "much ado about nothing,"

I think it's safe to say that Congress wasn't about to change that part of the law after 40 years.

"Federal restrictions enacted in 1968 prohibit the purchase of guns by those who have been "adjudicated as a mental defective" or "involuntarily committed to ...
www.nysun.com"

ArmedBear

June 15, 2007, 04:26 PM

BTW to be "adjudicated mentally defective" takes a LOT.

It does NOT mean, "Went to marriage counseling," or "sought psychological help for problem of compulsive overeating."

In layman's terms, it means that a court has gone through a bunch of legal processes and judged that someone is "f***ing crazy and probably will kill himself, others, or both" and has his/her legal rights reduced to somewhere near those of a zoo animal.

The reality is, some people ARE nuts, and there has to be SOME sort of legal way to separate them from the rest of sane society.

Yes, it's sort of scary that courts have this power, but what ELSE do you do? It's either that or just shoot 'em on the spot.

Early American society may have had informal ways of dealing with the mentally defective, through town meetings, informal family and neighbor groups, churches, etc., but this has always been an issue that communities have had to deal with somehow.

Monkeyleg

June 15, 2007, 05:50 PM

Here in WI, it's nearly impossible to have someone involuntarily committed. We tried with my crackhead BIL. He had so many arrests and warrants that we thought the judge would agree. But no.

GTSteve03

June 15, 2007, 06:02 PM

Can someone please tell me again what the good parts of this bill are?

IMNSHO, The slippery slope on this bill is more of a threat to the "right to privacy" folks than the NRA or the GOA for that matter.

The process of opening any medical (mental health) records to law enforcement scares the heck out of folks at NARAL and NOW. Once any medical records are fair game, they see the slope leading to government investigation and harassment of abortion doctore and their patients.

The only major actionable issues that came out of the VT tragedy were,

1. that gun free zones for students aren't.

... and

2. there are some folks running aorund that came up to a certain line as mentally dangerous, but since they were never locked up they are OK to buy a gun.

IIRC Cho had been ajudicated as a threat, but since he had never been committed he was fine with a gun. Sorry those of you "hard core" folks that think a person with serious mental problem should have the right to arm themselves, but as Monty Python might say, "You're a looney!".

My ex-wife was one of those folks and for two years we tried to have her legally committed. It isn't easy to do, as Monkeyleg pointed out.

Finally, she did something that went over the line and she was involuntarily committed. For two years she could have walked into any sporting goods store and bought a gun and that was wrong when medical professionals saw her as a possible threat to herself and others (e.g. me and my kids).

My hair is not on fire about this, as the GOA seems to always be, as long as the Senate doesn't screw around with it and try to tuck AWB style amendments on it. If they let it go as is it's a non-issue.

To quote my 1st sergeant in basic, "This hill ain't worth dying on".

gc70

June 15, 2007, 11:25 PM

Y'all do realize that while innocuous on the surface, this law opens a second front in the war to retain our cherished rights.
Now we not only have to watch for gun specific legislation but also for any and all mental health legislation.
It would be real easy for a new "health bill" to include new categories for adjudication.

You need to keep a sharper eye on your flanks. The "second front" you are so worried about opened up in 1968. The current bill actually narrows that front.

tulsamal

June 15, 2007, 11:34 PM

The very first thing I noticed when I saw a press release about this is that they did a voice vote. That's just strange right there. If everything is on the "up and up," that's not the way it is done. Do you think they would vote on a new abortion law or nuclear power or other controversial issue without having a recorded vote? The way it is now your Rep can tell you later that they voted against it and you won't be able to tell whether he is lying or not.

When they try to shove something through fast without a recorded vote, that's just wrong.

Gregg

publius

June 16, 2007, 07:26 AM

And WHY did the Democratsjoin with NRA in this way? SImple. They like winning.

I thought it was because they like spending, especially when it provides a new way to bribe the states (except Vermont). ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "more from GOA on passage of H.R. 2640" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!